Authors: Thomas Ricks Lindley
40
Condelle statement, August 1, 1836; Jose Faustino Moro to Pedro del Villar, August 27, 1836, Mexico [City], Box 2Q174, CAH;
Relacion de los senores, 17
, Filisola,
Memoirs
, II: 140 and 155; Almonte, “Private Journal,” 23-24.
About Doctor Reyes, Filisola wrote: “The commander in chief was attacked at that time by an inflammation of the stomach that was very serious. Since the troops had neither physicians nor surgeons there was contracted in that capacity a certain Don N. Reyes, who was scarcely a bad country quack doctor. . . .”
In Santa Anna to V. Filisola, February 6, 1836, Monclova, in Jenkins, ed.,
Papers
, IV: 276-277, we find these orders: (1) “you will take the ox-carts to carry the sick, that the corps might have on the march [to Bexar], and to replace any disabled ox-carts.” (2) “Those which might be sick in the army, of this city, and who may not be able to follow the army, shall remain in charge of a doctor [Moro] who shall have a house placed at his disposal to establish a hospital, and the necessary funds for medicines and utensils; at the same time commissioning an officer of trust to remain and take care of the arms, equipment, and uniforms of each patient, until the end of the month, and also of the pay which they will receive from the commanders of their respective corps.” (3) “The aforesaid officer shall be instructed, beforehand, to join the army with the sick men as soon as they are well enough to continue the march to Bejar, providing themselves, first, with the necessary items.” These orders certainly indicate that Santa Anna was concerned about taking care of his sick and wounded men.
41
Jose F. Moro letter, August 11, 1836; Condelle statement, August 1, 1836; Moro to Villar, August 27, 1836;
Relacion de los senores
, 17; Mariano Arroyo medical report on Alamo wounded, August 1, 1836, Matamoros, Exp. XI/481. 3/1150,
Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional
, Mexico City. Arroyo claimed that only three interns and he treated the Mexican wounded after the assault of the Alamo.
Dr. J. H. Barnard, who was in San Antonio on May 15, 1836, appears to acknowledge the arrival of the Mexican medical staff. He wrote in
Dr. J. H. Barnard's Journal
(Goliad, Texas:
The Goliad Advance
, 1912), 32: “
Sunday
[May]
15 - Nothing more of
news. A Mexican surgeon from Nondova [Monclova?] arrived. His name is Nioran [Narciso Gil?] and he seems something more respectable for a surgeon than the others I have seen. Yesterday I strolled over to the Alamo with our hospital captain (Martinez [intern Francisco Martinez?]). . . .” Remember, Barnard did not speak Spanish, which may explain the error of his names and titles. At Goliad, Joseph H. Spohn, who had been saved from the massacre of Fannin's men, acted as an
interpreter for Barnard and the other Texian doctors, who had been saved to treat the Mexican wounded.
42
Pena,
With Santa Anna
, 60.
43
Jose F. Moro letter, August 11, 1836; Arroyo statement, August 1, 1836.
44
Pena,
With Santa Anna
, 58-59; Moro letter, August 11, 1836.
45
Pena,
With Santa Anna
, 61; Miguel A. Sanchez Lamego,
Apuntes Para la Historia Del Arma De Ingenieros En Mexico: Historia De Batallon De Zapadore
(Mexico City:
Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional
, 1943), I: 172. Lamego reported Pena suffered a “
golpe contuso
” in the storming of the Alamo. This appears to refer to a severe blow to the head or a concussion. Salvatore Ramondino, ed.,
The New World Spanish/English English/Spanish Dictionary
(New York: Penguin Reference, 1996), 533, reports: “concussion n. concusion; golpe.” A number of my South Texas Mexican friends also report that a “
golpe contuso
” could mean a blow to the head that caused a concussion.
46
Barnard,
Dr. J. H. Barnard's Journal
, 29-30; Jack Shackelford, “Some Few Notes Upon a Part of the Texan War,” in Foote,
Texas and The Texians
, 45-46; Andrade,
Documentos Que El General
, #2, April 10, 1836, #5, May 16, 1836, and #8, June 13, 1836.
Barnard claimed that Dr. Jack Shackelford and he arrived in San Antonio on April 22, 1836. Shackelford reported they had been requested to go to San Antonio because the Mexicans did not have a person with the skill to amputate a leg, and many of the wounded had died because of that reason. Whereas, Barnard said they found about a hundred wounded at Bexar, Shackelford reported they found 400 wounded. Shackelford, however, other than saying they practiced medicine at San Antonio, gave no specific information about their work. Barnard does not say they performed any amputations; he only suggests they did so, saying no amputations took place until Shackelford and he arrived in San Antonio.
My special thanks to Alamo historian Rod Timanus for pointing out to me the extreme similarity of the Pena account and the Barnard account.
47
David H. Hackworth,
About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior
(New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 21; Phillips, ed.,
Roots of Strategy
, 426; Jose Enrique de la Pena to Editors of
El Mosquito Mexicano
, Mexico City, February 13, 1837, English translation in Borroel,
The Papers
, II: 10.
48
Pena to Editors, February 13, 1837; Ivey, “Another Look,” 10; Adrian Woll interview of Alijo Perez Garcia, witnessed and recorded by Jose Enrique de la Pena, June 27, 1836, XI/481.3/1151,
Archivo Historico of Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional
; Lillian I. Hutchison & Assoc. October 21, 2001, Georgetown, Texas, to Thomas Ricks Lindley.
The Adrain Woll document was written by Pena. The document is the first independent example of Pena's handwriting and his signature that has been located, and one does not have to be a professional document
examiner to see that the handwriting does not match the handwriting found in the alleged Pena letter of September 15, 1836, that has been used as a prologue in
With Santa Anna in Texas
. That missive makes the claim that he was going to use other written sources in publishing his campaign diary. Nor does the handwriting match the handwriting found in the Pena manuscript published as
With Santa Anna in Texas
.
Ms. Lillian I. Hutchison, a professional document examiner, examined the Woll/Pena document, the Pena prologue letter, a number of pages from the Pena Campaign Diary manuscript, and a number of pages from the Pena memoir manuscript. Her opinion was that the Woll/Pena document and the Campaign Diary manuscript were written by the same person. Her opinion in regard to the Pena prologue letter and the Pena memoir manuscript was that they were not written by the person who had written the Woll/Pena document. Her opinion was based on the numerous differences in the documents.
Even Ivey understands that the Pena account is research based. He wrote: “For that matter, it [Filisola's history] is the same as that of Pena, who although present at the battle, knew little other than what he immediately witnessed, and had to fill out his narrative with other sources. . . . Accepting such a document as authentic does not mean you accept all its statements (like Crockett being executed) as true.”
49
David Uhler, “ âSand' sifts through myth and reality,”
San Antonio Express
, February 6, 2001; Randy Roberts and James S. Olson,
A Line in the Sand: The Alamo in Blood and Memory
(New York, London, Toronto, Sidney, Singapore: The Free Press, 2001), 289.
There is another document reflected in the Pena final draft narrative. That being data about David Crockett. In a letter to a Charles Jeffries, dated August 17, 1904, William P. Zuber wrote of the tale of Crockett being executed. Zuber believed the execution story was pure Texas “bull.” Zuber wrote of the tale of Crockett's execution that he had heard. Zuber claimed he got the tale from Dr. George M. Patrick, who heard it from General Cos, who claimed he had found Crockett, unhurt, locked up alone in an Alamo room. Crockett is alleged to have told Cos: “I am David Crockett, a citizen of the State of Tennessee and representative of a district of that State in the United States Congress. I have come to Texas on a visit of exploration; purposing, if permitted, to become a loyal citizen of the Republic of Mexico. I extended my visit to San Antonio, and called in the Alamo to become acquainted with the officers, and learn of them what I could of the condition of affairs. Soon after my arrival, the fort was invested by government troops, whereby I have been prevented from leaving it. And here I am yet, a noncombatant and foreigner, having taken no part in the fighting.” Crockett had been a citizen of Tennessee. He did explore northeast Texas. Otherwise, the story is false. The Zuber letter was not available to the public until 1939 when it was published in
In the Shadow of History
.
The Pena account (
With Santa Anna
, 53) has a very similar passage in its description of Crockett's execution. It reads: “He was the naturalist David
Crockett, well known in North America for his unusual adventures, who had undertaken to explore the country, and who, finding himself in Bejar at the very moment of surprise, had taken refuge in the Alamo, fearing that his status as a foreigner might not be respected.” Crockett was “well known in North America for his unusual adventures.” Otherwise, the Pena claims are not true.
Roberts and Olson, in their understanding and description of how the Pena memoir narrative was constructed, have jumped the next to last hurdle in understanding why the alleged memoir appears to be a modern forgery. The last hurdle is being able to see and understand that a number of the written sources reflected in the Pena account
did not exist when Pena is alleged to have written the final draft
. Also, the final draft is
not in Pena's known handwriting style
. Therefore, Pena could not have written the final draft account
50
Arroyo statement, August 1, 1836, Matamoros. Arroyo claimed that four out of twenty-five officers died after having received treatment. The
Camposanto
burial records (typed transcript, DRT Library, Alamo) show that four Mexican officers were buried on March 6, 1836. The men were: #1563, Captain Joaquin Guillen, #1564 - Lt. Jose Maria Torres, Zapadore, #1565 - Lt. Irineo Guerrero, San Luis battalion, and #1566 - Lt. Jose Maria Alcala. All four are listed as having “died of wounds from the battle of the Alamo.” This would seem to indicate they were not killed in the assault, but later died in the makeshift hospital. This investigator, however, has not seen the original documents. The transcript identifies #1563 as Gregorio Esparza, an Alamo defender. Number 1563 is also identified as Joaquin Guillen. Kevin Young informed me that the Esparza name is not on the actual record; that it was added to the typed document. If the names of the Mexican officers are on the original and appear to be authentic entries, then it would seem the Pena account is correct when it claims that Jose Maria Torres was killed. On the other hand, it would appear that the Pena description is wrong in claiming: “. . . young Torres, died within the fort at the very moment of taking a flag. He died at one blow without uttering a word.” Also, it is of interest that the death of Torres is not mentioned in Pena's Campaign Diary manuscript.
The San Antonio burial records and evidence about the arrival of Dr. Moro and his interns in Bexar have forced this writer to take a second look at the
Relacion de los senores
document. Dr. Moro and interns Narciso Gil and Eduardo Banegas did not reach San Antonio until May 15, 1836, yet they are on the
Relacion de los senores
list, which is identified as being compiled in March 1836. I now believe the list was probably made in 1841, compiled from contemporary muster rolls and other documents. Thus, the roll probably lists people as living after the fall of the Alamo who had been killed in the battle.
Also, just because a name appears on the list, for example, the name Jose Julian Sanchez as the adjutant inspector, one cannot assume that is proof the person participated in the March 6 attack on the Alamo. First,
Sanchez, like Dr. Moro, could have arrived after March 6. Second, the Sanchez name is not listed as Jose Juan Sanchez, which is probably a mistake. But the name may be correct and the identification of Sanchez as the adjutant inspector may be wrong. Until somebody checks to see if there is a service record for a Jose Julian Sanchez who served at the Alamo in 1836, we will not know for sure which element is wrongâthe middle name or the title.
Jake Ivey, in “Another Look At Storming the Alamo Walls,”
The Alamo Journal
, March 2001, claims that a letter in the Mexican archives shows that Sanchez was a member of the 1836 campaign. Ivey cites: “Cancelados, XI/2-357, ff. 1-2.” The missive is a June 13, 1836, letter that Francisco V. Fernandez wrote, in which, according to Jack Jackson's research notes: “says auydante inspector writes me on 4th of present month. Refers [to the] defeat on margins of Rio San Jacinto on 21 April. If possible [he] wants to return to Texas on new campaign; 15 pesos out of [his] pay [is] volunteered.” If this is the evidence Ivey is referring to, it is not proof that Sanchez was at the Alamo or on the 1836 campaign. When Sanchez wrote of returning to Texas, it may refer to his service at the storming of Bexar in December 1835, which is not being questioned by this investigator. Also, according to Jackson's notes on Sanchez, he found no evidence in those documents (military service records) that indicates Jose Juan Sanchez served at the Alamo in 1836.
51
Jack Jackson research notes on Francisco Duque service record, Book 2, p. 261-267,
Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional
, Mexico City. Duque's request was either refused or he later rejoined the army.
52
Shackelford, “Some Few Notes,” in Foote,
Texas and The Texians
, 45-46.